savings and loan association

savings and loan association

savings and loan association, type of financial institution that was originally created to accept savings from private investors and to provide home mortgage services for the public.

The first U.S. savings and loan association was founded in 1831. In 1932, the Federal Home Loan Bank System was created to oversee the savings and loan associations, with deposits to be insured by the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation (FSLIC). Since 1933 the federal government has chartered savings and loan associations, although they have not generally been required to be federally chartered. After World War II, the associations began a period of rapid expansion. Historically, savings and loan associations could be organized in two ways: either as a mutual or a capital stock institution. A mutual organization would be similar in operation to a mutual savings bank.

The savings and loan institution went through many changes in recent years, primarily due to deregulatory measures instituted in the 1980s by the U.S. federal government, allowing them to offer a much wider range of services than ever before. The deregulatory measures allowed savings and loan associations to enter the business of commercial lending, trust services, and nonmortgage consumer lending. The Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980 began these sweeping changes, one of which was to raise deposit insurance from $40,000 to $100,000. Many contend that this extension of insurance coverage encouraged savings and loan associations to engage in riskier loans than they might otherwise have sought.

Two years later, the Depository Institutions Act gave savings and loan institutions the right to make secured and unsecured loans to a wide range of markets, permitted developers to own savings and loan associations, and allowed owners of these institutions to lend to themselves. Under the new laws, the Federal Home Loan Bank Board (FHLBB) was given a number of new powers to secure the capital positions of the savings and loan associations. Under these new laws, the FHLBB allowed savings and loan associations to print their own capital, and escape charges of insolvency through such measures as "goodwill," in which customer loyalty and market share were counted as part of a capital base. As a result, a thrift that was technically insolvent could resist government seizure.

Savings and loan associations began to engage in large-scale speculation, particularly in real estate. Financial failure of the institutions became rampant, with well over 500 forced to close during the 1980s. In 1989, after the FSLIC itself became insolvent, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation took over the FSLIC's insurance obligations, and the Resolution Trust Corporation was created to buy and sell defaulted savings and loan associations. The Office of Thrift Supervision was also created, in an attempt to identify struggling savings and loan organizations before it was too late. The savings and loan crisis ultimately cost the government some $124 billion.

They are often mutually held (often called mutual savings banks), meaning that the depositors and borrowers are members with voting rights, and have the ability to direct the financial and managerial goals of the organization. It is possible for a savings and loan to be a joint stock company and even publicly traded. This means, however, that it truly no longer is an association and depositors and borrowers no longer have any managerial control.

Early history of the savings and loan association

At the beginning of the 19th century, banking was still something only done by those who had assets or wealth that needed safekeeping. The first savings bank in the United States, the Philadelphia Savings Fund Society, was established on December 20, 1816, and by the 1830s such institutions had become widespread. Savings and loans accepted deposits and used those deposits, along with other capital that was in their possession, to make loans. What was revolutionary was that the management of the savings and loan was determined by those that held deposits and in some instances had loans. The amount of influence in the management of the organization was determined based on the amount on deposit with the institution.

The overriding goal of the savings and loan association was to encourage savings and investment by common people and to give them access to a financial intermediary that otherwise had not been open to them in the past. The savings and loan was also there to provide loans for the purchase of large ticket items, usually homes, for worthy and responsible borrowers. The early savings and loans were in the business of "neighbors helping neighbors".

The savings and loan in the 20th century (in the U.S.)

The savings and loan association became a strong force in the early 20th century through assisting people with home ownership, through mortgage lending, and further assisting their members with basic saving and investing outlets, typically through passbook savings accounts and term certificates of deposit.

The savings and loan associations of this era were famously portrayed in the 1946 film It's a Wonderful Life.

Mortgage lending

The earliest of mortgages were not offered by banks, but by insurance companies, and they differed greatly from the mortgage or home loan that is familiar today. Most early mortgages were short term with some kind of balloon payment at the end of the term, or they were interest-only loans which did not pay anything toward the principal of the loan with each payment. As such, many people were either perpetually in debt in a continuous cycle of refinancing their home purchase, or they lost their home through foreclosure when they were unable to make the balloon payment at the end of the term of that loan.

Savings and loan associations sprung up all across the United States because there was low-cost funding available through the Federal Home Loan Bank for the purposes of mortgage lending.

Further advantages

Savings and loans were given a certain amount of preferential treatment by the Federal Reserve inasmuch as they were given the ability to pay higher interest rates on savings deposits compared to a regular commercial bank. The idea was that with marginally higher savings rates, savings and loans would attract more deposits that would allow them to continue to write more mortgage loans, which would keep the mortgage market liquid, and funds would always be available to potential borrowers.

However, savings and loans were not allowed to offer checking accounts until the late 1970s. This reduced the attractiveness of savings and loans to consumers, since it required consumers to hold accounts across multiple institutions in order to have access to both checking privileges and competitive savings rates.

In the 1980s the situation changed. The United States Congress granted all thrifts in 1980, including savings and loan associations, the power to make consumer and commercial loans and to issue transaction accounts. Designed to help the thrift industry retain its deposit base and to improve its profitability, the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act (DIDMCA) of 1980 allowed thrifts to make consumer loans up to 20 percent of their assets, issue credit cards, accept negotiable order of withdrawal (NOW) accounts from individuals and nonprofit organizations, and invest up to 20 percent of their assets in commercial real estate loans.

In 1982, the Garn-St Germain Depository Institutions Act was passed and increased the proportion of assets that thrifts could hold in consumer and commercial real estate loans and allowed thrifts to invest 5 percent of their assets in commercial loans until January 1, 1984, when this percentage increased to 10 percent .

Decline

During the Savings and Loan Crisis, from 1986 to 1995, the number of US federally insured savings and loans in the United States declined from 3,234 to 1,645. This was primarily, but not exclusively, due to unsound real estate lending. The market share of S&Ls for single family mortgage loans went from 53% in 1975 to 30 % in 1990.

The following is a detailed summary of the major causes for losses that hurt the savings and loan business in the 1980s according to the United States League of Savings:

Lack of net worth for many institutions as they entered the 1980s, and a wholly inadequate net worth regulation.

Decline in the effectiveness of Regulation Q in preserving the spread between the cost of money and the rate of return on assets, basically stemming from inflation and the accompanying increase in market interest rates.

Absence of an ability to vary the return on assets with increases in the rate of interest required to be paid for deposits.

Increased competition on the deposit gathering and mortgage origination sides of the business, with a sudden burst of new technology making possible a whole new way of conducting financial institutions generally and the mortgage business specifically.

A rapid increase in investment powers of associations with passage of the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act (the Garn-St Germain Act), and, more important, through state legislative enactments in a number of important and rapidly growing states. These introduced new risks and speculative opportunities which were difficult to administer. In many instances management lacked the ability or experience to evaluate them, or to administer large volumes of nonresidential construction loans.

Elimination of regulations initially designed to prevent lending excesses and minimize failures. Regulatory relaxation permitted lending, directly and through participations, in distant loan markets on the promise of high returns. Lenders, however, were not familiar with these distant markets. It also permitted associations to participate extensively in speculative construction activities with builders and developers who had little or no financial stake in the projects.

Fraud and insider transaction abuses were the principal cause for some 20% of savings and loan failures the past three years and a greater percentage of the dollar losses borne by the FSLIC.

A new type and generation of opportunistic savings and loan executives and owners—some of whom operated in a fraudulent manner — whose takeover of many institutions was facilitated by a change in FSLIC rules reducing the minimum number of stockholders of an insured association from 400 to one.

Dereliction of duty on the part of the board of directors of some savings associations. This permitted management to make uncontrolled use of some new operating authority, while directors failed to control expenses and prohibit obvious conflict of interest situations.

A virtual end of inflation in the American economy, together with overbuilding in multifamily, condominium type residences and in commercial real estate in many cities. In addition, real estate values collapsed in the energy states — Texas, Louisiana, Oklahoma particularly due to falling oil prices — and weakness occurred in the mining and agricultural sectors of the economy.

Pressures felt by the management of many associations to restore net worth ratios. Anxious to improve earnings, they departed from their traditional lending practices into credits and markets involving higher risks, but with which they had little experience.

The lack of appropriate, accurate, and effective evaluations of the savings and loan business by public accounting firms, security analysts, and the financial community.

Organizational structure and supervisory laws, adequate for policing and controlling the business in the protected environment of the 1960s and 1970s, resulted in fatal delays and indecision in the examination/supervision process in the 1980s.

Federal and state examination and supervisory staffs insufficient in number, experience, or ability to deal with the new world of savings and loan operations.

The inability or unwillingness of the Bank Board and its legal and supervisory staff to deal with problem institutions in a timely manner. Many institutions, which ultimately closed with big losses, were known problem cases for a year or more. Often, it appeared, political considerations delayed necessary supervisory action.

The consequences of governmental acts and reforms

As a result, the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989 (FIRREA) dramatically changed the savings and loan industry and its federal regulation. Here are the highlights of this legislation, signed into law August 9, 1989 :

The Savings Association Insurance Fund (SAIF) replaced the FSLIC as an ongoing insurance fund for thrift institutions (like the FDIC, the FSLIC was a permanent corporation that insured savings and loan accounts up to $100,000). SAIF is administered by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.

The Resolution Trust Corporation (RTC) was established to dispose of failed thrift institutions taken over by regulators after January 1, 1989. The RTC will make insured deposits at those institutions available to their customers.

The characteristics of savings and loan associations

The most important purpose of these institutions is to make mortgage loans on residential property. These organizations, which also are known as savings associations, building and loan associations, cooperative banks (in New England), and homestead associations (in Louisiana), are the primary source of financial assistance to a large segment of American homeowners. As home-financing institutions, they give primary attention to single-family residences and are equipped to make loans in this area.

Some of the most important characteristics of a savings and loan association are:

It is generally a locally owned and privately managed home financing institution.

It receives individuals' savings and uses these funds to make long-term amortized loans to home purchasers.

It makes loans for the construction, purchase, repair, or refinancing of houses.